Upload
vuongcong
View
217
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Shabtai Bittman Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Approaches to Reducing Ammonia Emissions in Canada
Special session on Agriculture and Air Pollutionorganized for WGSR by the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen and the Secretariat
Sub-title:Mitigating ammonia in the absence of government policies: the Canadian experience
Why are there no agricultural policies for ammonia abatement in Canada?
1. Farm practices are under provincial jurisdiction; difficult to have national regulations.
2. Ammonia has lower profile than nitrate in ground water, phosphorous in surface water, or GHG emissions
3. Overlooked synergies: e.g. ammonia is main N loss pathway from farms so need abatement to improve N efficiency, and as N is the main energy input on many farms, abatement will reduce energy conumption.
Trend in emissions of air pollutants in Canada
Ammonia BSE outbreak
Ammonia emissions in Canada- domestic food consumption and export
Commodity Per consumed protein (kg/kg)
Due to food consumption
(Gg/year)
Due to exports
(Gg/year)Cereal products 0.026 4.8 33Dairy products 0.21 36 0.45Eggs 0.15 4.3 0.45Pulses and nuts 0.004
Prov. Poultry Beef Dairy Swine Fertilizer Provincial Share of National Emissions
% %BC 18.8 45.6 21.3 4.2 10.0 3.6AB 1.8 70.0 4.4 7.9 20.0 27.3SK 1.0 51.1 1.5 7.2 39.4 21.4MB 3.2 44.0 4.2 22.0 26.0 11.4ON 9.0 32.9 20.7 23.2 15.9 18.6QC 7.4 18.5 27.7 35.4 12.9 14.8NB 14.8 27.0 25.9 16.7 16.7 0.6NS 19.7 30.0 27.4 14.8 8.4 0.7PE 2.0 32.3 21.7 22.3 22.3 0.7NF 16.9 11.2 61.5 2.3 7.7 0.1
Total 4.8 45.5 11.1 16.1 22.3 100
Total National Emissions (tonnes NH3 /yr)
440000
Ammonia emissions in Canada- sectors and regions
Ammonia emissions in Canada- sectors and farm activities (kt N/yr)
Estimates Beef Pigs Dairy Poultry TotalTotal excretion 423.0 130.0 91.8 35.3 680.1Lost as NH3 from pasture 19.6 0.0 1.8 0.0 21.4
Retained on pasture 193.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 210.2Lost as NH3 from confinement housing 90.1 37.8 15.4 9.4 152.7
Transferred to storage as slurry 9.6 87.7 40.3 3.1 140.7Transferred to storage as solid 111.0 4.3 17.1 22.8 155.2
Lost as NH3 from storage 11.3 5.2 5.8 1.2 23.5Transferred to land as slurry 9.4 83.5 39.0 3.0 134.9Transferred to land as solid 99.7 3.2 12.6 21.8 137.3
Lost as NH3 after land spreading 48.6 26.4 24.4 10.8 110.2Retained on land after spreading 60.5 60.3 27.2 13.9 161.9
Lost as NH3 from all production sources 170.0 69.5 47.5 21.3 308.3
Proportion of N emitted as NH3 (%) 40.2 53.5 51.7 60.3 45.3
Commercial fertilizer 100Total agricultural NH3 408
Adapted from Sheppard & Bittman, 2013
Transport into Canada
Clair et al. 2014
Some examples of current farm practices that reduce ammonia
emissions in Canada
Practices that reduce ammonia emissions in Canada
1. Use of legumes and pulses in crop rotations to improve income, yield and soil for next crop
Nationally, N fixation > commercial N fertilizer
2. Side-banding (injection) of urea-based fertilizers to improve fertilizer efficiency and reduce application costs has very low emissions (~5%)
Almost universal for spring grains in western Canada, but cannot be used for winter cereals, forages or with high N rates.
Practices that reduce ammonia emissions in Canada
Fertilizer application practices (%) for different N forms in Eastern and Western Canada
Nitrogen FertilizersMethod of application Urea UAN Anhydrous NH3 OtherEastern Canada
Broadcast 16 12 0 14Incorporated or partially injected 60 49 0 43Fully injected 25 39 100 43
Western CanadaBroadcast 6 7 0 21Incorporated or partially injected 13 26 0 50Fully injected 82 68 100 30
from Sheppard &Bittman, 2011
3. Low emission application of pig slurry to reduce odour and phosphorous runoff- especially western Canada
Not widely adopted by dairy because: hard to do on onforages, smaller farms, and there are fewer complaints against smaller dairy farms.
Practices that reduce ammonia emissions in Canada
Atlantic On/ QC Boreal Prairie Pacific CanadaDairy
broadcast 82 82 83 70 85 80surface bands 10 6 8 2 1 5shallow injection 2 5 4 12 3 6deep injection 0 3 0.0 14 0 4
Swinebroadcast 76 65 56 45 59surface bands 16 10 13 4 9shallow injection 2 12 9 16 12deep injection 1 9 17 31 16
Farms (%) applying slurry manure by broadcasting, and low emission methods including surface banding shallow injection and deep injection
4. Grazing widely used on beef cow-calf operations to reduce operating cost; reduces emissions from housing, storage and manure spreading.
Note: increasing use of winter grazing
Practices that reduce ammonia emissions in Canada
5. Coincidental abatement Cold weather and surface crusts reduce
emissions from liquid manure especially form dairies
Practices that reduce ammonia emissions in Canada
Other Ammonia Abatement Measures in Canada
Direct Multiple phase feeding for pigs and chickens target protein
intake (cost saving) Increasing milk yield per cow reduces excretion rate (feed cost
saving) Indirect Increasing farm sizes-increased use of slurry and greater use
of manure contractors. Precision agriculture reduces N inputs and losses Large, fast equipment enables timely field operations Use of urease inhibitors (limited agricultural uses yet)
Other low-cost BMPs could increase this to a saving of 96 kt NH3year1 or 26% of present emissions (costs less certain but assumed low)
Potential for additional low cost ammoniaabatement in Canada- targets for policies?
Based on Sheppard, S.C. and Bittman, S., 2013. Agr. Ecosys. Envir. 171,90-102.
Countertrends More reduced tillage (less opportunity for incorporation) Reduced grazing on dairy farms More loose housing on dairy farms: greater emitting surface and les
targeted feeding Shorter cow lifespan hence more replacements must be maintained Possibly more overfeeding of protein (we are testing this hypothesis)
Practices that reduce ammonia
Strategic mitigation policy(harm reduction)-
can it work?
Ammonia: seasonal effects on air quality near Vancouver Canada
Gray haze due to fine particles made of ammonia for agriculture and nitrate form vehicles ---reduces visibility and hurts tourism
Winter Late summer
Ammonia emissions (red) and ambient atmospheric concentrations (blue) over 12 month period
Based on Bittman, S. et al. 2015. Atmospheric Env. (in press)
July 1 Sept 15 July 1
Poor air quality
ambient ammonia
ammonia emission
Strategic ammonia policy to mitigate poor air quality -can it work?
Abatement opportunities using integration
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
6/17/2007 8/6/2007 9/25/2007 11/14/2007 1/3/2008 2/22/2008
Date
N:P
Rat
io
1.8m1.2m0.6m0.3m0.15m
High-solids sludge
Low-solids supernatant
Manure separation for balancing nutrients:achieves for dual ammonia abatement:
Liquid fraction banded (for N) on grass low emission due to rapid infiltration Sludge fraction (for P) corn by precision closed injection
Surface banding for N on grass
Precision injection for P on corn
Dual manure stream concept
Chart3
5.255.255.255.255.25
5.85.86.22.12.1
6.76.62.32.11.9
7.25.52.21.91.2
1.8m
1.2m
0.6m
0.3m
0.15m
Date
N:P Ratio
Cylinder1
Manure brought in November 08,2006
Cylinder length 2.60m
Cylinder diameter 0.30m
Manure column 2.40m
OperationDateDry matter(%)Nova test(%)TypeLab #
Brought inNov-08-20069.00.14Whole62
DilutedDec-04-20066.20.10Whole65
SamplingJan-08-20076"66Dumped
SamplingJan-08-2007Did not1 foot67Dumped
SamplingJan-08-2007settle2 feet from bottom68Dumped
SamplingJan-08-20074 feet from bottom69Dumped
SamplingJan-08-20076 feet from bottom70Dumped
EmptyJan-22-2007
Fill up withJan-24-20075.274
new manure
SamplingMar-01-20076 inch78
SamplingMar-01-20071 foot from bottom79
SamplingMar-01-20072 feet from bottom80
SamplingMar-01-20074 feet from bottom81
SamplingMar-01-20076 feet from bottom82
SamplingApril-05-20076 inch87
SamplingApril-05-20071 foot from bottom88
SamplingApril-05-20072 feet from bottom89
SamplingApril-05-20074 feet from bottom90
SamplingApril-05-20076 feet from bottom91
other data
Data from transparent cylinder started on August 03, 2007
Find three sets of data analysed from the most relevant sampling
1) is three samples's dates
2) is the top plug samples
3) is the particle sizes
total NNH4-Ntotal PDMpH
Lab #manuretypeDate%%%nh4/pn/p%
108Fill up with fresh manureFreshAug. 03-20070.210.080.051.65791379424.16938158445.3.
118Trans.Cylinder decanted6 inchOct.-17-20070.150.250.120.091.3447785412.80791785125.87.4
119Trans.Cylinder decanted1 foot from bottomOct.-17-20070.30.260.120.101.26111906582.75438990675.87.2
120Trans.Cylinder decanted2 feet from bottomOct.-17-20070.60.220.120.091.41806535582.62603948326.27.2
121Trans.Cylinder decanted4 feet from bottomOct.-17-20071.20.150.100.033.74235403025.22251229222.17.5
122Trans.Cylinder decanted6 feet from bottomOct.-17-20071.80.150.100.033.47716724045.2208829392.17.8
123Trans.Cylinder decanted6 inchNov-28-20070.150.250.130.091.39223143992.71324641126.77.3
124Trans.Cylinder decanted1 foot from bottomNov-28-20070.30.250.120.091.37559849932.82119874176.67.3
125Trans.Cylinder decanted2 feet from bottomNov-28-20070.60.160.100.033.68507880865.73962175532.37.5
126Trans.Cylinder decanted4 feet from bottomNov-28-20071.20.160.110.025.03526784947.68140834822.17.6
127Trans.Cylinder decanted6 feet from bottomNov-28-20071.80.140.100.033.95167553495.50881880561.97.4
140Trans. Cyl. decanted6 inchJan. 19- 20080.150.300.130.101.31026174653.09917813097.2.
141Trans. Cyl. decanted1 foot from bottomJan. 19- 20080.30.250.120.081.53091143143.27064675595.5.
142Trans. Cyl. decanted2 foot from bottomJan. 19- 20080.60.170.110.033.68857712785.65300146382.2.
143Trans. Cyl. decanted4 foot from bottomJan. 19- 20081.20.150.100.024.83830631287.45151105821.9.
144Trans. Cyl. decanted6 foot from bottomJan. 19- 20081.80.100.070.016.16205176328.51062291961.2.
145Trans. Cyl. decantedplug 0 cmJan. 19- 20080.240.100.071.37709478723.20811888885.9
146Trans. Cyl. decantedplug 5 cmJan. 19- 20080.260.110.091.16919624592.78430814776.6
147Trans. Cyl. decantedplug 10 cmJan. 19- 20080.150.090.023.88278938066.35912993472.3
148Trans. Cyl. decantedplug 15 cmJan. 19- 20080.430.120.120.98549047213.507817327411.8
149Trans. Cyl. decantedplug 20 cmJan. 19- 20080.440.110.140.81876701043.173003546813.4
.
Particle sizes
1> 1.00mm6 inchOct.-17-20070.310.120.0811.9.
26 inchOct.-17-20070.350.100.12..
3 1.00mm1 foot from bottomOct.-17-20070.290.120.0911.0.
51 foot from bottomOct.-17-20070.360.110.12..
6 1.00mm2 foot from bottomOct.-17-20070.300.120.107.0.
82 foot from bottomOct.-17-20070.39.0.13..
9
Cross media
Ammonia mitigation may cause pollution swapping (leaching and N2O)
e.g. Manure injection
Conclusion: The drive to efficiency often helps with mitigation (eg precision
feeding and fertilizing) Emission reduction may piggy-back on more dominant issues
(injection of pig manure) It is important to understand the emission inventory (eg in
Canada emissions from storage are low) There are impediments (need large reductions to effect
change) but equally there are opportunities to target impact Need for multipurpose technology with low uptake threshold
such as low emission applicators that can be home built
Thank you
https://www.crops.org/images/publications/jeq/32/3/789f1.jpeg
Abbotsford Sumas Aquifer
Legumes are important source of N in extensive pastureland
Search for persistent alfalfa for western pastures
20-yr old stand ofMedicago falcatavariety Yellowhead
Seed production field for Yellowhead
Winter grazing of beef cows/calves
in Canada
Increase in winter grazing by (pregnant ) beef cows from 2006 to 2012
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
A East BS P
Rati
o w
inte
r/su
mm
er g
razi
ng o
f cow
s
2006
2012
Atlantic Central North Prairies
Potential low cost reductions(new measures-current measures)
Current practice New practices Stage-specific reduction (%)
Reduction after all stages within each
sector (%)
National cost per year
Current practices Only BMPs with known low abatement costs: slurry storage and slurry spreading. change in layer housing
--- 5 $13M or $0.80 per kg NH3
Current practices All BMPs listed with assumed low costs --- 26 Unknown
Increasing dairy farm sizes leads to increased use of liquid manure with more available abatement measures
Practices that reduce ammonia
Size (quartile) Beef Dairy Pigs Layer
1 13 (1000) 85 (195) 99 (3,300) 34 (70,000)
2 2.6 (200) 77 (94) 99 (2,200 31 (26,000)
3 3.9 (80) 72 (65) 98 (1600) 43 (13.000)
4 4.2 (30) 64 (40) 88 (940) 61 (7,600)
Slide Number 1Slide Number 2Why are there no agricultural policies for ammonia abatement in Canada? Slide Number 4Ammonia emissions in Canada- domestic food consumption and exportSlide Number 6Ammonia emissions in Canada- sectors and farm activities (kt N/yr) Transport into CanadaSome examples of current farm practices that reduce ammonia emissions in CanadaPractices that reduce ammonia emissions in CanadaPractices that reduce ammonia emissions in CanadaFertilizer application practices (%) for different N forms in Eastern and Western Canada Practices that reduce ammonia emissions in CanadaSlide Number 14Practices that reduce ammonia emissions in CanadaPractices that reduce ammonia emissions in CanadaOther Ammonia Abatement Measures in CanadaSlide Number 18Practices that reduce ammoniaStrategic mitigation policy(harm reduction)- can it work?Slide Number 21Ammonia emissions (red) and ambient atmospheric concentrations (blue) over 12 month periodAbatement opportunities using integrationSlide Number 24Cross media Conclusion: Thank youSlide Number 28Legumes are important source of N in extensive pasturelandWinter grazing of beef cows/calves in Canada Slide Number 31Increase in winter grazing by (pregnant ) beef cows from 2006 to 2012 Potential low cost reductions(new measures-current measures)Practices that reduce ammonia